Lies, Cons,and the American Way

[Alexiev]

Our mythology suggests that the "American Way" is dilligence and hard work, which will be rewarded financially (and is morally admirable). This mythology is promoted by the Capitalists who fruitlessly wish that it were true.

In fact, if there is an "American Way" or an "American Dream" it resides in the quick score. It sent our ancestors scrambling to California and the Klondike in Gold Rushes that impoverished the vast majority of the rushers. It is reflected in our election of the con-man Donald Trump as President. Lottery tickets sell well.

Mark Twain once said, "Show me a man who don't lie, and I'll show you a man who ain't got much to say." (Or perhaps that quote is a lie, too)

Two current news stories remind me of this.

First, Sam Bankman-Fried is on trial for defrauding customers out of billions of dollars in his crypto-currency company and his hedge fund. Yello Kid Weil, perhaps the greatest American con-man, once said that you can't con an honest man. You have to find those looking for an "angle". Crypoto-currency seems the perfect opportunity. It's a con, and those investing are looking for a quick score, like the Gold Rushers of yore. I haven't followed the case closely enough to have an educated opinion about Bankman Fired's guilt of innocense. What do others think? Is crypto-currency a con? Is Bankman-Fried (the son of two Stanford Law Professors who specialize in legal ethics and are also being sued for accepting gifts from their billionaire son) guilty?

Second, two superstars in social science are being accused of fraud. Dan Ariely and Francesca Gino are leaders in the post-modern movement that has questioned the foundation of classic Economic Theory: the notion that economic man is a "rational actor". Of course they are right ---but it also appears that they have both fudged their data to support their conclusions. Ariely was an economics professor at MIT, Gino a professor at Harvard. They rose to the top of their professions (with $50,000 lecture honororiums) by publishing paper after paper explaining how and when people lie and deceive. It appears that they were themselves lying and deceiving (I just read a current New Yorker article about them, but I can't find it on line to provide a link). Perhaps the dishonest are prone to studying dishonesty.

Is lying immoral? If so, would it be immoral to lie to protect a friend, or lie to the Gestapo about where the Jews are hiding? If these lies are acceptable, doesn't that show that it is not lying ipso facto that is immoral, but some result that comes from lying? Any opinions?

[FlashDangerpants]

Klondike?

[Alexiev]

Klondike?

The Klondike is in Canada, but most of the Gold Rushers were American. I highly recommend the book about that Gold Rush by Pierre Breton. The most direct way to reach the Klondike was through Skagway, Alaska, which was a town ruled by crooks and con men. The Klondike itself was better policed, for which Breton credits the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (and one man in particular, whose name a don't remember).

[Immanuel Can]

...the Capitalists....

There is no such thing.

You've accidentally invented an ideology to parallell "Socialism." Nobody has an ideology of "capital": it's not an "-ism."

Is lying immoral? If so, would it be immoral to lie to protect a friend, or lie to the Gestapo about where the Jews are hiding?

Or, it it immoral to invent an ideology that doesn't exist, just because one oneself has one?

Any opinions?

Just those observations. No opinions.

[Alexiev]

...the Capitalists....

There is no such thing.

You've accidentally invented an ideology to parallell "Socialism." Nobody has an ideology of "capital": it's not an "-ism."

Is lying immoral? If so, would it be immoral to lie to protect a friend, or lie to the Gestapo about where the Jews are hiding?

Or, it it immoral to invent an ideology that doesn't exist, just because one oneself has one?

Any opinions?

Just those observations. No opinions.

Thanks for expalining my motivations for me, but I'm perfectly capable of explaining them myself. According to the dictionary, a "Capitalist" is "An owner of captial, especially one who has large means employed in productive enterprise". Such people might naturally be interested in extolling dilligence and hard work on the part of their employees.

But, of course, since you are so much wiser than the lexicographers from whom I copied this definition, "there is (sic) no such thing " as "Capitalists". Perhaps you are unaware of the distinction between "ists" and "isms" (although my dictionary suggest there is such a thing as "capitalism" by defining it as "an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are for the most part privately owned and operated for private profit.")

Perhaps you prefer your own language to English. You will have to forgive the rest of us for preferring standard usage.

[Lacewing]

Is lying immoral? If so, would it be immoral to lie to protect a friend, or lie to the Gestapo about where the Jews are hiding? If these lies are acceptable, doesn't that show that it is not lying ipso facto that is immoral, but some result that comes from lying? Any opinions?

Although it may not be 'immoral', it may be inhumane (even barbaric) to perpetuate such a 'low level' of human potential.

#1: Becoming desensitized -- A team of researchers at University College London and Duke University set out to find out what exactly goes on in the brain when we tell a lie. In particular, they wanted to know whether the brain becomes desensitized to dishonesty over time, making it easier to tell a lie when we do so over and over again.

"Early on, they saw a great deal of activity in regions of the brain associated with emotions—the amygdala in particular. This observation suggests that participants initially felt very bad about the lies they told. But over time, as participants lied again and again, these areas of the brain showed less and less activity. When lying no longer stirs up negative feelings, we are able to increase the magnitude of our lies. Then the additional, larger lies further deaden our sensitivity to the act of lying, and the slippery slope continues."

#2: Vibrational energy -- Quantum physicists discovered that physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating at different speeds. "This includes trees, bodies, rocks, animals, thoughts, and emotions. Human vibrations are composed of everything from physical matter to the way you communicate the thoughts you think. In simple terms, some molecules vibrate faster and some vibrate slower; there are higher vibrations and lower vibrations."

Many people have come to understand/perceive -- through experiencing their own repeatable results -- that this 'vibrational energy' has qualities (for better or worse), and relates to consciousness, and that 'like attracts like' (essentially amassing more of itself). For example: Working with dark, dense emotions/energy is not only limiting and deadening, but gathers/creates more of the same.

I think vibrational energy ripples throughout the collective of humankind and all of life -- so the most essential and responsible thing any individual can do is to become more conscious.

[Immanuel Can]

...the Capitalists....

There is no such thing.

You've accidentally invented an ideology to parallell "Socialism." Nobody has an ideology of "capital": it's not an "-ism."

Is lying immoral? If so, would it be immoral to lie to protect a friend, or lie to the Gestapo about where the Jews are hiding?

Or, it it immoral to invent an ideology that doesn't exist, just because one oneself has one?

Any opinions?

Just those observations. No opinions.

According to the dictionary, a "Capitalist" is "An owner of captial,

Do you know something about dictionaries? They include all definitions of words as people happen to use them, without judging those usages as right or wrong in a conceptual sense.

Want proof? One definition of "bad" is "good." https://www.dictionary.com/e/when-bad-r ... eans-good/. Of course, that's because "bad" has recently and colloquially been changed to mean its own opposite, as when Michael Jackson dances around, singing, "I'm bad." So much, then, for using a dictionary to tell us when a usage is apt or misleading. That's not the job a dictionary sets out to do. It just tells us what people DO, not whether they SHOULD do it, when it comes to language.

So what you're depending on there is a post-Marx dictionary, which is designed to include every definition of a term that has become used. And it will tell you Marx's definition of "Capitalism," as well as the one the Wokies now all use so liberally. But it won't tell you whether or not "Capitalism" refers to a real thing, anymore than it will necessarily exclude "unicorn" because those don't exist.

So you need to do some actual eetymology: and when you do, you'll find out that what I was telling you was absolutely true. The very word "Capitalism," and the idea that "capital" was an ideology, is an invention of the mid 19th Century, just before Marx was writing "Das Kapital." He wasn't the first to use the concept, but he was nearly the first; and he made use of it like nobody had before. Prior to all that, the idea that there was any ideology of "Capitalism" was not believed by anybody...it was too silly a thing to imagine. What? There's a class of people who is worshipping money? Where are they? Where are their churches? Do they have a club? How do you get in? It was silly then, and it still is, though the word has become common. Think "unicorn."

We are inheritors of his errors, as are the dictionaries now, since they do not judge the accuracy of the definitions, only whether or not they are currently used that way.

You will have to forgive the rest of us for preferring standard usage.

Well, there's an old saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." You can be forgiven for having not known in past; they've fooled many, and it's their mendacity that's to blame. But now you know. If you fool yourself, it will not be the Marxist propagandists who are to blame anymore.

[promethean75]

"According to the dictionary, a "Capitalist" is "An owner of captial, especially one who has large means employed in productive enterprise"

That's all in the communist's head. In the real world, people don't own businesses and employ workers they pay a wage to that is less than the value of what they produce.

[Alexiev]

There is no such thing.



Want proof? One definition of "bad" is "good." https://www.dictionary.com/e/when-bad-r ... eans-good/. Of course, that's because "bad" has recently and colloquially been changed to mean its own opposite, as when Michael Jackson dances around, singing, "I'm bad." So much, then, for using a dictionary to tell us when a usage is apt or misleading. That's not the job a dictionary sets out to do. It just tells us what people DO, not whether they SHOULD do it, when it comes to language.

So what you're depending on there is a post-Marx dictionary, which is designed to include every definition of a term that has become used. And it will tell you Marx's definition of "Capitalism," as well as the one the Wokies now all use so liberally. But it won't tell you whether or not "Capitalism" refers to a real thing, anymore than it will necessarily exclude "unicorn" because those don't exist.

So you need to do some actual eetymology: and when you do, you'll find out that what I was telling you was absolutely true. The very word "Capitalism," and the idea that "capital" was an ideology, is an invention of the mid 19th Century, just before Marx was writing "Das Kapital." He wasn't the first to use the concept, but he was nearly the first; and he made use of it like nobody had before. Prior to all that, the idea that there was any ideology of "Capitalism" was not believed by anybody...it was too silly a thing to imagine. What? There's a class of people who is worshipping money? Where are they? Where are their churches? Do they have a club? How do you get in? It was silly then, and it still is, though the word has become common. Think "unicorn."

We are inheritors of his errors, as are the dictionaries now, since they do not judge the accuracy of the definitions, only whether or not they are currently used that way. Well, there's an old saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." You can be forgiven for having not known in past; they've fooled many, and it's their mendacity that's to blame. But now you know. If you fool yourself, it will not be the Marxist propagandists who are to blame anymore.

Well, yes, language is only meaningful if words have shared, conventional meanings. And yes, the meanings of words change and evolve. So what?

The dictionary definition of Capitalism refers to an economic system, not "belief". What would "believing in capitalism" suggest? Would it suggest that some people b

[Alexiev]

There is no such thing.



Want proof? One definition of "bad" is "good." https://www.dictionary.com/e/when-bad-r ... eans-good/. Of course, that's because "bad" has recently and colloquially been changed to mean its own opposite, as when Michael Jackson dances around, singing, "I'm bad." So much, then, for using a dictionary to tell us when a usage is apt or misleading. That's not the job a dictionary sets out to do. It just tells us what people DO, not whether they SHOULD do it, when it comes to language.

So what you're depending on there is a post-Marx dictionary, which is designed to include every definition of a term that has become used. And it will tell you Marx's definition of "Capitalism," as well as the one the Wokies now all use so liberally. But it won't tell you whether or not "Capitalism" refers to a real thing, anymore than it will necessarily exclude "unicorn" because those don't exist.

So you need to do some actual eetymology: and when you do, you'll find out that what I was telling you was absolutely true. The very word "Capitalism," and the idea that "capital" was an ideology, is an invention of the mid 19th Century, just before Marx was writing "Das Kapital." He wasn't the first to use the concept, but he was nearly the first; and he made use of it like nobody had before. Prior to all that, the idea that there was any ideology of "Capitalism" was not believed by anybody...it was too silly a thing to imagine. What? There's a class of people who is worshipping money? Where are they? Where are their churches? Do they have a club? How do you get in? It was silly then, and it still is, though the word has become common. Think "unicorn."

We are inheritors of his errors, as are the dictionaries now, since they do not judge the accuracy of the definitions, only whether or not they are currently used that way.

Well, there's an old saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." You can be forgiven for having not known in past; they've fooled many, and it's their mendacity that's to blame. But now you know. If you fool yourself, it will not be the Marxist propagandists who are to blame anymore.

Well, yes, language is only meaningful if words have shared, conventional meanings. And yes, the meanings of words change and evolve. So what?

The dictionary definition of Capitalism refers to an economic system, not a "belief". What would "believing in capitalism" suggest? Would it suggest that some people believe that an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned doesn't (or can't) exist? Or would it suggest such a system is beneficial, or even ideal?

Why do you object to shared definitions? Who cares if the shared definitions were influenced by Marxist propaganda? It seems that you want to define words for your own propagandists reasons. Stop it! Arguing about definitions is a waste of time. If you have something meaningful to say, please be my guest.

[LuckyR]

Lying is immoral when conversing with an individual who deserves (has earned) your truth. Lying to those who do not deserve the truth is not immoral.

[Alexiev]

Although it may not be 'immoral', it may be inhumane (even barbaric) to perpetuate such a 'low level' of human potential.

#1: Becoming desensitized -- A team of researchers at University College London and Duke University set out to find out what exactly goes on in the brain when we tell a lie. In particular, they wanted to know whether the brain becomes desensitized to dishonesty over time, making it easier to tell a lie when we do so over and over again.

"Early on, they saw a great deal of activity in regions of the brain associated with emotions—the amygdala in particular. This observation suggests that participants initially felt very bad about the lies they told. But over time, as participants lied again and again, these areas of the brain showed less and less activity. When lying no longer stirs up negative feelings, we are able to increase the magnitude of our lies. Then the additional, larger lies further deaden our sensitivity to the act of lying, and the slippery slope continues."

#2: Vibrational energy -- Quantum physicists discovered that physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating at different speeds. "This includes trees, bodies, rocks, animals, thoughts, and emotions. Human vibrations are composed of everything from physical matter to the way you communicate the thoughts you think. In simple terms, some molecules vibrate faster and some vibrate slower; there are higher vibrations and lower vibrations."

Many people have come to understand/perceive -- through experiencing their own repeatable results -- that this 'vibrational energy' has qualities (for better or worse), and relates to consciousness, and that 'like attracts like' (essentially amassing more of itself). For example: Working with dark, dense emotions/energy is not only limiting and deadening, but gathers/creates more of the same.

I think vibrational energy ripples throughout the collective of humankind and all of life -- so the most essential and responsible thing any individual can do is to become more conscious.

This is off topic, but the reductionist explanations you offer seem to demonstrate the problems with reductionist. Everyone knows that liars lie. We don't need to measure brain chemistry to figure that out. The brain chemistry measurements seem scientific, but add nothing to our understanding of psychology

Everyone also knows that if we were omniscient, sub atomic physics could explain the universe. As it is, it adds little to our understanding

[Immanuel Can]

Well, yes, language is only meaningful if words have shared, conventional meanings. And yes, the meanings of words change and evolve. So what?

So not all invented words are sensible, reasonable and non-propagandistic. The term "Capitalism" fails to refer to anything real.

The dictionary definition of Capitalism refers to an economic system, not a "belief".

But -isms, like Communism, Social-ism, Buddh-ism, Sikh-ism and Vegan-ism refer to belief systems. Nobody believes in "capital." Capital is a thing that exists or does not. And the market system that produces it is simply a free market.

What would "believing in capitalism" suggest? Would it suggest that some people believe that an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned doesn't (or can't) exist?

No. Socialists use the term to describe what they see as "the Other," the Dread Force against which they array themselves. They are actually so stupid that they believe that some people are just so devoted to profit-making that they actually have an ideology around it -- rather than, say, it being one product of common, simple greed. They invent an ideological "bogeyman" to excuse their own ideological-possession, and they need such a thing to justifiy the interference they wish to advocate. So it's both useful and a projection of their own psychologies.

And in order to combat this Dread Ideological Force, this contrary "-ism," they advocate the handing of the entire economic system into the hands of an elite of greedy tyrants of their own. You see it in every single case of Socialism in history. It's highly ironic that the thing they claim to fear is the thing toward which they desire to rush us all, in the name of escaping an "ideology" that does not even exist.

Why do you object to shared definitions?

"Shared"? Of course not: if they're only "shared" but also "good," no problem. But to bad ones, yes. And to propaganda, absolutely, I would object. So should you.

[Immanuel Can]

Lying to those who do not deserve the truth is not immoral.

I would say it is. It puts you on their level.

[Immanuel Can]

In the real world, people don't own businesses and employ workers they pay a wage to that is less than the value of what they produce.

Marx was a simpleton, in this regard. He talked as if the whole value of a transaction was in the worker's hands. In truth, it's very hard to say how the value of a transaction should be calculated. It's immensely complex.

Let's take the guy who parks cars out front of the hotel. What should he be paid for his labour? What's the value of his work? How do we calculate it?

We might say, "He deserve X dollars an hour." Well and good: how do we explain why it's that figure, and not another? And then, how do we add in the value of the guy who paved the parking lot, so there was a place for the attendant to park the cars? And how much of the value is due to the manager of the hotel, without which there would be no parking needed, and no lot, and no parking attendants? And how much should go to the investor who financed the building of the hotel, without which there would be no job for the manager, and no parking attendants? And how much is due to insurance, and how much to renovations, and how much to the city to finance the road that leads to the hotel? And what is appropriate for the hotel management not to give as outright wages, but to pay to employee benefits, unemployment, property taxes...etc.?

So if you were to say there are businesses that are underpaying their employees, you need to be able to show that you know what the employees contributions are worth, and that what the business is paying is not commensurate. Good luck.

Or...there's a much easier way. Just use a free market. Let the employees sign on voluntarily, if they are happy with the amount of money that is being offered, they work at the hotel; and otherwise, they can choose another job, one that pays them more, and do that. Problem solved. And no Socialist miscalculation involved.